(edit: title corrected thanks to @Ghoelian@feddit.nl’s info)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/1624944

Saw a “no cash” sign at a bakery. Conversation went like this:

me: So, no cash? What’s going on there?

cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to accept cash.

me: Isn’t it the other way around? Isn’t there a legal tender law in #Netherlands?

cashier: Yeah, we’re not allowed to refuse cash.

me: So this sign posting says loud and clear “we are breaking the law”, in effect, no? Is that not being enforced?

cashier: That’s right. It’s unenforced in Netherlands.

The same thing is happening in #Belgium. This kind of forces me to revise my understanding of European culture & norms. In both the US & Europe there is a culture of certain laws (rightfully) going unenforced against individual natural people. E.g. small amounts of marijuana possession. But I previously thought when it came to moral/legal people (businesses), they simply complied with the law in Europe to a great extent.

IOW, companies complied with laws in Europe. Contrast that with the US where corporations small and large will blatantly disregard any laws that interfere with profit based on the calculated risk of getting caught and risk of penalties.

I just wonder if Europe is being influenced by cavalier US corps and changing to comply only when penalties are likely. Or is this something I had wrong all along… that EU companies were always loose with compliance?

#WarOnCash

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPNederlands
      21·
      10 months ago

      Thanks for the info. That link is broken for me but I was able to reach the article here:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20220831155757/radar.avrotros.nl/hulp-tips/hulpartikelen/item/mag-een-winkel-cash-geld-weigeren/

      This differs from Belgium then. In Belgium shops are breaking the legal tender law and it’s going unenforced.

      (update) It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale. E.g. suppose you’ve been paying your debt by bank transfer, then your bank account gets cancelled (either by you or by the bank). You could then be in a situation of only having the capacity to pay in cash. What does NL law say in that situation?

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneNederlands
        4·
        10 months ago

        It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale.

        That’s the point of the notice rule. You need to know about the condition before the transaction, so you can’t be forced into a debt that can’t be settled with cash.

        • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPNederlands
          1·
          10 months ago

          I don’t quite follow. It would be nice to know in advance before entering home mortgage contract that 10 years into the loan the bank that holds your asset account is going to give you the boot. The reality is that you don’t even get a 1 day notice sometimes (depending on circumstances).

          So the contract with your mortgage lender might say the payer agrees to pay via bank transfer for 15 years, while all contracts for asset accounts at all banks never include a guarantee to keep your account open. They reserve the right to pull the plug at any time. Are you saying that in the situation where the payer does not know in advance that their bank account will remain open that they are protected and thus can switch to cash payments?

            • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPNederlands
              1·
              10 months ago

              If you agree to pay back your mortgage by bank statements, it’s up to you to make sure you have a bank account.

              Yikes! So the law has ensured that people are put in the unreasonable position of making guarantees they are not in control over.

              if you can no longer get a normal bank account (because of financial crimes you’ve committed, you falling into debt repeatedly makes you too risky for the banks, etc.)

              It’s much easier than that to be systemically shut out. You just have to be born in the wrong place. Point 2 in this paper. That page lists several situations where a law-abiding consumer is shown the door by banks.

              you can get a basic bank account which comes with various restrictions, but will allow you to pay your bills.

              EU basic bank accounts do not support cash deposits. So if you earn cash or your bank was at least kind enough to warn you before they close your account and you withdrew cash, that money is trapped as cash & cannot be spent from a basic account.

              This avenue should always be open to you, so the “I can’t pay through a bank account” excuse probably doesn’t work.

              Depends on your nationality.

              Suppose you are a Canadian residing in Netherlands and you buy a house. You sign up for a loan under non-negotiable¹ terms. Say 8 years later Canada makes a treaty with NL saying that Dutch banks must either report all Canadian consumers to Canada or they must very closely watch their Canadian clients (bank’s choice). Both options are a burden on banks, so banks decide it’s not worth the money a few Canadians them to deal with it, so they reject all Canadians unless they open a basic account. But the does not want to serve Canadians with basic accounts because of the extra babysitting burden. So they don’t inform Canadian consumers that the option exists. They simply send them a letter saying they have 1 month to clear out their bank account and leave. Some Canadians will do just that and bring home a pile of cash. Other Canadians will take the time to do a bit of research & discover they can force the bank that’s booting them to open a new “basic” account for them.

              Human Rights Breached

              It’s a human rights problem (all people must be treated as equals which is even codified in EU law). But it’s being ignored. So rewind 8 years. How would a Canadian have predicted that their human rights would be pushed aside and they would be given the boot by banks?

              So the Canadian homeowner is booted by the bank and the mortgage lender says “not my problem; pay me and it better not be cash”. How is that reasonable? It comes down to really fucked up law that overlooks the importance that all debts be payable in cash. Not only is the Canadian victimized by way of the human rights violation of treating them different, but then the creditor kicks them when they are down. The lender is also a bank possibly even one with a vault for handling cash, but they simply do not want the inconvenience of handling a monthly cash payment.

              The above hypothetical actually happened - but with USians. USians are at the mercy of banks to accept them. Some banks will verbally say “we don’t take Americans” (they will never put that in writing though because it’s an illegal policy). Some banks have decided to take US clients but with extra reporting (thus still violating their human rights by way of unequal treatment). So some USians will say fuck this I’m done with banks. But what about the mortgage that’s still in play? It’s insanely reckless to impose on the human being side of the contract the ability to predict that disaster. And regardless of that, even if a mortgage borrower could predict it, it’s a human rights problem that it would preempt them from home ownership.

              Why is this happening? (A: “crime fighting”)

              This raises the question: WTF justifies forcing everyone into this shitty banking system? Crime fighting (they say). So non-criminals are getting probed, kicked around, harassed, & denied service under the “crime fighting” rationale? How fucked up is that that the hunt for criminals is designed to put non-criminals in harms way? The whole point to fighting crime is to protect non-criminals in the first place.

              Prediction: Brits or Canadians are next

              One of those two countries will be next to follow in the footsteps of the USA, and their citizens will also become toxic citizens to banks.

              ¹ It’s always non-negotiable terms because no bank will take the burden of altering terms and then have to manage different terms for different clients. You can only negotiate figures.

                • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPNederlands
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  You do have control over this. You can still fuck up, that’s what the special bank account is for.

                  What do you mean by “the special bank account”? No one can force a bank to accept their business. Even basic bank accounts have qualifications. Not that it matters because since you can’t deposit your cash into a basic bank account, you’re not in control anyway.

                  Hence the basic bank account.

                  If your money is in cash, that’s useless. And even if you can get it transferred, it’s still useless if you can’t find a bank that doesn’t impose closed-source software on you after that trend runs its course. Mortgage contracts in force today predate imposed smartphones w/big attack surfaces and were signed before the consumer could have predicted that.

                  I did not know that. I can see why, though. Banks are already asking several euros per deposit because nobody likes dealing with large amounts of cash.

                  It doesn’t matter what their excuse is. They’ve created situations where debtors cannot pay their debt despite having the money.

                  That depends on how much cash you have.

                  It does not.

                  You can spend it on groceries

                  Buying groceries does not pay your mortgage lender. So say you convert the cash into beer. Then what? You ask the mortgage lender if they can accept beer?

                  or give it to someone else who can deposit it and send the money over to you from their bank account.

                  LOL. I was shocked when I heard an energy supplier suggest this very same thing. I said “will you be my friend for 2 minutes, pay my bill, and accept my cash?” (silence).

                  How can you seriously suggest that it’s okay to draft policy that relies on consumers having friends who aren’t also unbanked?

                  We can’t change anything about Canada changing their laws.

                  It’s not Canadian law. It’s international treaty between NL and Canada. NL agreed to it. Surely you don’t believe Canada has direct authority over Dutch banks.

                  That’s not really our problem.

                  It is your problem because Netherlands agreed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is bound by it.

                  If the Canadian government tells its citizens they must use a monitored bank account and Dutch banks don’t play ball, then that’s a problem between you and the Canadian government.

                  Not when you have human rights violations. The DUTCH bank under DUTCH law in this scenario is treating Canadians different than Australians (for example). It’s a human rights violation and the jurisdiction is Netherlands. Canada’s only role was to coerce the Dutch into violating the human rights of Canadians. The violation is at the hands of the Dutch who should have rejected the treaty.

                  I’m not sure what human right is being breached here. You, as a Canadian, with a registered address, have the same rights as everyone else

                  Same human rights, yes, but getting different treatment under Dutch law. That is the problem.

                  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

                  Article 26:

                  “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

                  (emphasis mine)

                  If you’re borrowing money from someone, they can state their terms and it’s up to you to accept them

                  Article 25 ¶1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

                  “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

                  So you have lenders pass through human rights violations (via forced but unequal banking) onto Canadians who undertake to secure housing under article 25. When the bank discriminates against Canadians and the mortgage lender imposes forced banking by contract, the human rights violations are also at the hands of the mortgage lender.